NV 2d 48!, 429NYS 2d 592 (1980);
KLONDIKE GOLD AFC v RICHMOND
ASSOCIATES, 103 AD 21 2 1,478 NYS 2d 55(2nd Dept., 1984)
4 In the case
953 F.2d 26
it. 1991), the Circuit Court
that the District Court should have explained to the litigant proceeding without a lawyer,the con
ect pleadings &imi to the plaintiff so that he could have amended his pleadings
accordingly. [his is what the court said' We think that Platsky should have a chance to
state his claim more clearly. It is notbeyonddoubt that the plaintiff can prove no set offacts in support of hisclaim[s],
v. Kernsr 404 U.S. at 521, 92 SCt, at 595. and
therefore we hold that the better course would have been or the district court, in dismissing
Platsks pro so complaints, to grant him leave to tile amended pleadings. See
872 F.2d at 22. We have instructed Platsky that his complaint must set out, will,particularity and specificity, the actual harms he suffered
result of the defendantsclearly defined acts.
In the case
Roll Elec., Inc.
53 F. 3d 465 (2nd Cir. 1991). the court
stated: Dismissal is appropriate only if
ppears beyond doubt that the plaintiff canprove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him In relief."
In die case
NYC Transit Authorily,
941 F. 2d 119 b2
Cir. 199111he court stated:
The appropriate inquiry, therefore, is not "whether a plainti ITwill ultimately prevail butwhether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims"
Plaintiff respectfully reserves the right to amend his pleadings without leave ofeourt, and
since lawyer Miss. Ratner pointed out to some deJcts in plaintiffs complaint, he decided
to amend it without any argument or waste Of Court's time. Exhibit A.